From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Eric Dumazet Subject: Re: [PATCH] tcp: assign the sock correctly to an outgoing SYNACK packet Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2013 11:21:43 -0700 Message-ID: <1365445303.3887.33.camel@edumazet-glaptop> References: <20130408154519.18177.57709.stgit@localhost> <1558855.HGIqa4tJdt@sifl> <1365443267.3887.28.camel@edumazet-glaptop> <1725553.maWFXblPLa@sifl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: David Miller , netdev@vger.kernel.org, mvadkert@redhat.com To: Paul Moore Return-path: Received: from mail-ie0-f180.google.com ([209.85.223.180]:57755 "EHLO mail-ie0-f180.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S934699Ab3DHSVs (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Apr 2013 14:21:48 -0400 Received: by mail-ie0-f180.google.com with SMTP id a11so7247530iee.25 for ; Mon, 08 Apr 2013 11:21:46 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1725553.maWFXblPLa@sifl> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, 2013-04-08 at 14:12 -0400, Paul Moore wrote: > > It seems a bit fragile to me, perhaps even hacky, but in some ways I guess it > isn't anymore fragile than relying on skb->sk - as this problem demonstrates. > My other concern is that adding this hook *correctly* is likely to touch a lot > of files and may be a bit much so late in the 3.9 cycle, Dave, what say you? I don't get it, 90ba9b1986b5ac4b2d18 was in 3.6, why do you care of 3.9 ? I am preparing a fix right now. Not a revert, thank you.